Supreme Court Cases and the Watergate Scandal Kylie Prymak, Shaneann Fross, Colleen Lloyd.

Supreme Court Cases and the Watergate ScandalKylie Prymak, Shaneann Fross, Colleen Lloyd

Mapp v. Ohio - 1961

• If the police find evidence, but they violated the fourth amendment in order to find it, it is inadmissible in court.

• Fourth Amendment: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures…but upon probable cause.

• Found obscene material after getting a “search warrant” that was later never introduced as evidence in her trial. They originally entered her house looking for a bombing suspect and betting equipment.

Mapp v. OhioCauses

• Warren Court• Warren wanted to start a

revolution in the criminal justice system.

• Wanted to nationalize the Bill of Rights

• He also wanted to protect people in the areas of legal council, confessions, and searches.

•The development for the exclusion of illegal evidence began in the Weeks case (1914), continued in Elkins (1960), and culminated with Mapp. (Elkins overturned the “silver platter doctrine)

Effects • Places requirement of

excluding illegally obtained evidence from court at all levels of the government

• In order for it to be legal, the police must obtain a search warrant from the court.

• The warrant should only be issued if there is probable cause.

• Launched the court on a troubled course of determining how and when to apply the exclusionary rule

• Protected privacy

Gideon v. Wainwright - 1962

• Clarence Gideon broke into a pool room• In and out of prison for nonviolent crimes

• Was denied legal counsel • Jury convicted him and he was sentenced to five years• Appealed to Florida Supreme Court – denied• Appealed to Supreme Court • Controversy over the Sixth Amendment

• Sixth Amendment: In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial… and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.

• Gideon was unanimously voted for

Gideon v. WainwrightCauses

• In Florida, only poor people accused of capital crimes• Florida afraid everyone

would want an attorney• Betts v. Brady

• Justice Owens determined that the Sixth Amendment only protected your right to counsel, but didn’t require the State to provide it for you.

• Warren Court• Protect the right to counsel

Effects

• Confirmed the public’s right to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.

• Protect the people in court• Reexamine Betts v. Brady • Set precedent for right to

counsel• The Supreme Court ruled

“Lawyers in criminal courts are necessities, not luxuries.”

• The right to counsel was re-assessed for misdemeanors and juvenile proceedings.

• The promise of Gideon remains unfulfilled

Escobedo v. Illinois - 1964

• Escobedo and his sister were arrested for the shooting of his brother-in-law. (Immigrants)

• He didn’t know he could remain silent• Attorney wasn’t allowed to see Escobedo- for 14 hours

•Denied counsel- said attorney didn’t want to see him•Violated Sixth Amendment

• Eventually confessed to murder• Justice Goldberg ruled person had “an absolute right to

remain silent”•First time ever mentioned

• Moved from the Sixth to Fifth Amendment- appropriate warnings and waiving of right to remain silent

Escobedo v. IllinoisCauses

• Warren Court (1962-1965)

• Illinois police said he wasn’t formally arrested, so no due process• violated 14 and 5

• Interrogation en route to police station (for 14 hours??)

• Couldn’t meet with counsel until end of arrestment process

Effects

• Precursor to Miranda v. Arizona

• American Civil Liberties Union- got reversal

•Working for protection of rights

• Started series of trials concerning the fifth and the sixth amendment

• Criminal suspects have a right to counsel during police interrogations

Miranda v. Arizona - 1965• A court called upon to consider the constitutionality of a

number of instances in which were deprived of freedoms or questioned.

•Miranda v. Arizona: Miranda held for two hours for questioning. •Vignera v. New York the petitioner made admissions and signed a statement without being notified of his right to counsel. •Westover v. United States the petitioner signed statements without notification of his right to counsel •California v. Steward the petitioner was interrogated for five days without notification of his right to counsel.

•The S.C. declared that a defendant must be warned prior to questioning that he has the right to remain silent and proper questioning must take place in order to use confessions.

Miranda v. ArizonaCause

• Mapp v. Ohio, Gideon v. Wainwright, and Escobedo v. Illinois gave the “fundamentals of fairness” standard. Thank you Judge Warren.

• Because there was already groundwork for “fair questioning and right to counsel” the Miranda case fit into the niche of both and allowed the S.C. to specify exactly what individuals deserved.

Effect

● The mandatory “Miranda Rights” came into being.

● The defendant must also be told about his right to counsel

● If an individual indicates that he wishes to remain silent the questioning must cease or if he wants an attorney the questioning must cease until an attorney is present.

Yates v. United States - 1956

• Fourteen Communist Party leaders were convicted under the Smith Act• Prohibited willfully and knowingly conspiring to teach

and advocate the overthrow of the government by force

• Final decision: 6 for Yates, 1 against• There was a District Court retrial

• Court saw the Act inapplicable to organizational acts• Difference between “advocacy and teaching of

forcible overthrow as an abstract principle” and “advocacy and teaching of concrete action for the forcible overthrow of the Government

Yates v. United StatesCause

• Warren Court• Smith Act (1940)

• didn’t overturn the act, but didn’t apply it

• Schneiderman v. United States - 1943• Tried to revoke

Schneiderman’s citizenship because he was a communist

• Communist party advocated a violent overthrow of the government

• Ruled U.S. didn’t prove Communist Party malice or that he denied the Constitution

• Protect the First Amendment

Effect• Smith Act (1940)

• Said it didn’t apply to existing or subsequent organizational acts

• Concrete v. abstract teaching about overthrowing the government

• speech - advocacy of action• Bradenburg v. Ohio - 1969

• Bradenburg, a leader of the Ku Klux Klan, gave a speech

• Ohio Criminal Syndicalism Law - illegal to advocate for terroristic acts to start industrial or political reform

• Ruled Ohio violated first amendment

Engel v. Vitale - 1961

● In New York the Board of Regents authorized a short, voluntary prayer for recitation at the start of the school day. ○ A parent sued for his child arguing that it violated the

First Amendment.○ The S.C. concurred that this prayer violated the

“establishment of religion” clause in the First Amendment.

● The government is not allowed to endorse any particular belief system, even if many American people believe in some sort of religion.

Engel v. VitaleCause

● McGowan v. Maryland (1962): Religious stuff must be done by individuals and groups, not the government.

● West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette (1943): If someone objects to reciting a prayer they cannot be forced to do so and must not be publicly embarrassed.

Effect

● Still unpopular with a majority of Americans

● The precedent for cases dealing with religion

● Affected religion in public especially whether the government can fund religious schools

● Wallace v. Jaffree (1985), Lee v. Weisman (1992), and Sante Fe ISD v. Doe (2000)

Griswold v. Connecticut - 1964

● Griswold was a lady who worked at Planned Parenthood and gave advice to married couples about birth control. She was convicted because under Connecticut law it was a crime to provide counseling to married people about preventing conception.

● The S.C. ruled that Connecticut, by trying to ban contraceptives, violated the right to marital privacy. ○ It was decided that marital privacy is a “fundamental

right”■ The right to privacy isn’t specifically mentioned in

the Bill of Rights or the Constitution, but it is a firmly rooted tradition. Its protection is mandated by Amendments: 1, 9, 14.

Griswold v. ConnecticutCause

● A belief in the privacy of marriage.

● Poe v. Ullman● A desire to curb the

population and allow women more time between pregnancies.

● The idea of Due Process from the 14th Amendment was still up in the air for many cases and many voted for Griswold based on this clause.

Effect

• The First, Third, Fourth and Ninth Amendments created the new constitutional right to privacy in marital relations

• Legalized the use of birth control and new acceptance of contraceptives

• Other court cases followed with similar ideas: Eisenstaedt v. Baird and Roe v. Wade

The Watergate Scandal• June 17. 1972

• Break in at the Democratic National Committee in the Watergate office complex (Washington D.C.)

• Wiretap phones and steal secret documents• G. Godran Liddy (former FBI agent), E. Howard Hunt (retired CIA worker)• Other burglars: James McCord (handle the bugging) Bernard Baker (photograph

the documents) and Virgilio Gonzalez (pick the locks)• Committee to Re-Elect the President (CREEP)

• Liddy and McCord worked in the committee = direct link to Nixon• Federal bank fraud

• Coverage from the Washington Post• Bob Woodward and Carls Burnstein: found even more details on the break-in

and cover up• connections in the Justice Department, FBI, CIA, and White House• Biggest source for Woodward: Deep Throat

• Secretly met in underground parking garages and helped Woodward make the connections about the scandal

• Eventually revealed about 30 years later as FBI #2, Mark Felt

The Watergate Scandal (Cont.)• March 25, 1973: the Watergate Committee began the investigation

• White House Chief of Staff: H. R. Haldeman• April 9, 1973: Washington Post picks up the inside scoop between the bugging and cover-up:

CREEP was providing “slush funds” to the burglars. (Hush money, keep them quiet!)• On April 24, Nixon found out White House counsel John Dean testified to the White House

ordering the break-in• The crack also sucked in John Ehrlichman (also White House counsel and assistant in

Foreign Domestic Affairs) and H.R. Haldeman (White House Chief of Staff)• Nixon “tearfully” had them resigned, further covering his involvement in the scandal

• On May 17, the Watergate Committee hearings officially began• Nixon was getting cornered, but he still refused to testify or provide White House

documents, calling it “Executive privilege”• Alexander Butterfield testified about a new issue: the Nixon tapes

• Nixon had supposedly installed recording devices in the oval office for later use• In the summer, VP Spiro Agnew resigned to avoid criminal proceedings (accepted bribes

totaling more than $100,000)• Saturday Night Massacre: firing of Special Prosecutor Cox and Justice Department resignations

• Occurred from the Stennis Compromise - Nixon wanted Senator Stennis to review and summarize the tapes for the prosecutor (Archibald Cox)

• Smoking Gun Tape: Nixon was caught in the tape attempting to obstruct justice and approving the break-in

• Nixon formally resigned on August 8, 1974

Watergate

Causes

• At the time people assumed the President could wiretap any conversation• “Our Man Flint”

• Nixon believed winning re-election was crucial

• Nixon was paranoid• (Trying to cover it up made it

worse)• Checkers Speech - accused of

accepting bribes while running as Eisenhower’s vice president• publicly denied it on TV

Effects

• Loss of respect for the Presidency and the U.S. Government

• The Republican Party had issues bouncing back

• Even bigger issue to return to normal after the Tehran Hostages

• New laws established to “rein in Presidential power”• Law of Unintended

Consequences• New regulatory agencies --

the OSHA and NHTSA

Works Cited• http://www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/get-involved/constitution-acti

vities/sixth-amendment/right-counsel/facts-case-summary-gideon.aspx

• http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1963/1963_615 • http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1965/1965_759 • http://www.northeastern.edu/news/2013/03/gideonwainwright/• http://www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/get-involved/constitution-acti

vities/first-amendment/freedom-religion/facts-case-summary.aspx• http://www2.maxwell.syr.edu/plegal/compulegal/engel_v__vitale_precedents.

htm• https://shprs.clas.asu.edu/sites/default/files/Schneiderman_v_US.pdf • http://www.oyez.org/cases/1950-1959/1956/1956_6 • http://www.ala.org/advocacy/intfreedom/censorshipfirstamendmentissues/co

urtcases

• http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1968/1968_492 • http://watergate.info/ • http://watergate.info/1952/09/23/nixon-checkers-speech.html